No On Tankers, Yes On Helos...Can We Make Up Our Minds?

EADS North America recently announced delivery of the first of five H-72A helicopters to the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. They'll be used for test pilot training by the Navy. Normally, I wouldn't bat an eyelash at news of a new aircraft delivery other than to say I'm glad the military is working to keep it's fleet up to date. However, the H-72A is a commercial off the shelf ("COTS") military program based on the Eurocopter EC-145...a subsidiary of EADS.

In case you haven't heard, the USAF is currently delaying the replacement of the ancient KC-135 tanker because the new contract was awarded to EADS and people all over the US threw a fit about a foreign aircraft getting a US military contract. People complained so much that even though the EADS Airbus 330 won the competition, the contract has been revoked and the process is being started all over again.

So, on one hand EADS is an evil empire unfit for producing a US military aircraft (the tanker,) but on the other they are the quality supplier of a US military aircraft (the helicopter) to an elite US Navy flying unit. Confused? Me too. Don't worry it gets better.

It turns out that the US Army has taken delivery of dozens of UH-72s and plans to buy over 300 in total. (For background on that, I refer you to the Wikipedia entry about the UH-72 Lakota.) When you read that, you'll see that the UH-72 competed against several other aircraft, including some American Bell and MD helicopters for the Army's Light Utility Helicopter program. You'll also be reminded that the US Coast Guard operates two types of EADS aircraft: the HH-55 Dolphin and the HC-144A (CASA CN-235.)

So the Army, Navy and Coast Guard all operate foreign aircraft. How can this be? Perhaps those aircraft all performed well in competition and are the best fits for their respective missions. That would seem to make sense for the H-72/EC-145. It's a popular helicopter and, among other things, serves well as a civilian medivac helicopter at companies like STAT MedEvac all over the world.

There still must have been protests though. Buying the H-72 probably sends jobs overseas, right? Well, actually no. The H-72 is produced at an EADS North America facility in Columbus, Mississippi. In fact, the blurb at the bottom of the EADS NA articles boasts that they operate in 17 states, contribute $11 Billion annually to the US economy and provide Americans with over 200,000 jobs.

That's funny because if I remember correctly, EADS had already broken ground on a brand-new factory in Mobile Alabama to build the new A330 tanker for the USAF before the government went back on their contract to buy the tanker. Based on their other contributions to the US economy and job market, it appears that EADS really did plan to let the A330 tanker be produced in the United States and help the local economy.

Speaking of that tanker, EADS North America just announced another milestone in the A330 tanker program: they've refueled a pair of NATO F-18s simultaneously. Their tanker also recently demonstrated night refueling.

This all boils down to a frustrating and confusing dichotomy. On one hand, the US government is actively buying and operating hundreds of EADS aircraft. Those aircraft won competitions to replace aging aircraft, accomplish their missions, and are produced in America by Americans. On the other hand, the US government has given itself over to a frenzy of politicking with it's tanker deal. This tanker also won a competition to replace a 60 year old airframe, is demonstrating its ability to accomplish the mission and would be produced in America by Americans. This deal would not have been anything new or out of the ordinary. The US government has a long history of operating foreign aircraft. I don't see any honest justification for not flying a foreign-designed tanker given the circumstances. Is this really as hypocritical a situation as it seems or am I missing something?

Photos via EADS NA